The November-December 2014 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine is a true collector’s item. I have already written about the fascinating debate (‘Faulty Powers’) sparked by John Mearsheimer’s claim in the preceding issue that the West is to blame for the crisis surrounding Ukraine.Another major essay, entitled ‘Pick Your Battles,’ by Richard Betts, director of the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies, Columbia University explains how the US military can move beyond its losing engagements with counterinsurgency and nation-building over the past dozen years and return to what it knows best: big wars against great powers. Russia specialists may take comfort in Betts’ finding that Russia is too weak for the US to bother with and can be left safely to its NATO allies in Europe to dispatch. China hands must shiver alone: China is the big game that the Pentagon can stalk in war scenarios intended to preserve U.S. global hegemony. Yet it is the contribution of Richard Haass, president of the Council of Foreign Relations, parent organization of Foreign Affairsmagazine which probably trumps all others in the issue. This magisterial essay, entitled “The Unraveling. How to Respond to a Disordered World’ should be mandatory reading for the editorial board of Foreign Affairs. Their studying it closely could lead to very beneficial changes in the publication policy with respect to ''dissident voices'' in the American international relations community.Considering where he stands on Putin and Russia generally, it is more than ironic that Haass chose to address the very same theme as guided the Valdai Discussion Group’s meeting in Sochi the week before FA’s November-December magazine was released to its subscribers: "The World Order: New Rules or a Game without Rules." And where Vladimir Putin’s keynote speech in Sochi was a model of consistency, the doyen of his field in the USA delivered an analysis and prescription for policy that is a jumble of contradictions.At the start of his essay, Haass sets out the challenges to global governance and describes the causes, many of which, by his own determination relate to US actions in the Middle East and the way it has conducted its relations with Russia. He touches upon a number of more general buttons with which we in the 'other camp' on directions for US policy will agree fully: including the lax regulation of financial institutions that led to the 2008 crisis which is the biggest determinant in European politics today, plus the 'overly aggressive national security policies that trampled international norms.' Moreover, it is not just American political scientists in the shadows who would agree with his very frank listing of causal factors to the unraveling of the world order. Vladimir Putin's narrative tracks very closely to the points laid out by Haass.As regards his big picture appraisal of pluses and minuses around the globe, Haass speaks of Russia as an unappealing outlier capable of causing troubles only on Europe's periphery. The language is so close to passages in President Obama’s speeches about Russia in the late spring and summer that the question naturally arises: who scripted whom?Russia is not a major threat in part because it is constrained by interdependency, in Haass’ view. As a consequence, he concludes that America can direct its attention elsewhere: Europe is "no longer a security problem." Thus, Haass is entirely on the same page as Richard Betts as noted above. But this is an odd formulation at the very moment when a hot war between Russia and NATO can break out at any moment on the territory of Ukraine and when Russia's declared military doctrine states that it will use nuclear arms if it faces superior conventional forces.The risks of nuclear exchange by misjudgment in the context of the ongoing information war and hyper-active military maneuvers of both sides must not be played down. This is not Ebola. It is not ISIS. It is a potential Armageddon. How can Haass and Betts be oblivious to it all?Given Haass’ spot-on statements about Russia being constrained by interdependence, I find it contradictory that in the last third of his essay, among his recommendations for a way forward he persists in recommending that we 'shore up Ukraine economically and militarily, strengthen NATO and sanction Russia." Then one inch down the page he calls upon Europe to cut its dependence on Russian energy. Surely this is not out of solicitude for Europe’s economic welfare, since Russian gas, especially if the South Stream project is eventually built, is and will be the most secure and by far the cheapest source of energy available to the Old Continent. The real intent is to destroy the foundations of the Russian economy and downsize the Russian-European strategic partnership. That policy of cutting interdependence is a concise formula for ending Russian restraint and ushering in WWIII.Sandwiched between those two economic prescriptions is the recommendation that Ukraine ‘not become a member of NATO any time soon.” This formulation will shock the Neocons, for whom Ukraine’s joining NATO will prove its sovereignty and provide a cudgel against Russia. At the same time, the intentionally vague ‘any time soon’ will not satisfy Russia for whom Ukraine must be excluded from consideration for NATO, full stop.At the beginning of his essay, Haass casts aside the objections to Russia itself being admitted to NATO going back to the 1990s, before the water went over the dam. He says that in effect NATO is no longer a classic alliance, just a pool of talent for 'coalitions of the willing.' Why then does he not re-examine the implications of his own words as they bear on current policy? We are now beyond Russia in NATO, though from the Russian standpoint it was a viable proposition as recently as in 2009, a year after the Georgian war. But we have before us the possibility to return to Dmitry Medvedev's initiative of finally ending the Cold War in a manner that was overlooked by the Clinton presidency, by bringing Russia into a newly designed pan-European security architecture. Medvedev's 2008 proposal was half-baked, but the West made no counter-offer.In conclusion, I find that Richard Haass arrives at a neutral position in his tour d’horizon of global order and forces for disorder. But he does so in a manner that will please no one. He takes the understanding of causality from the dissident analysts who are almost never published in Foreign Affairs. And he provides the policy recommendations that come from the hawks who populate the administration and who otherwise fill the pages of the magazine. Is it any wonder that with advisers like this the United States has such a wrong-headed policy on Russia, and on many other hot spots globally?

G. Doctorow is an occasional guest lecturer at St. Petersburg State University and Research Fellow of the American University in Moscow. His latest book, Stepping Out of Line: Collected (Nonconformist) Essays on Russian-American Relations, 2008-12, is available in paperback and e-book from Amazon.com and affiliated websites worldwide.

All statements in this report are an opinion of the author. Act at your own risk. Russia & America Goodwill Association (RAGA) is not responsible for the content of the article. Any views or opinions presented in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RAGA. Any liability in respect to this communication remain with the author.

One of my vehicles is a 6.7L Diesel Dodge Ram 3500 (dually) so falling price of oil benefits me greatly. Additionally, with the winter upon us, cheaper heating bills are an excellent financial break that many North Americans desperately need. And of course let’s not forget that nearly everything either depends on oil - like food production, or is made of it – such as plastics and other synthetic products. Thus, declining cost of oil does mean lower prices for nearly everything we consume or use. Without a doubt this is good news for the struggling middle class. However, falling oil prices are bad for big business since they equate to loss of revenue, and here lays the problem!

All statements in this report are an opinion of the author. Act at your own risk. Russia & America Goodwill Association (RAGA) is not responsible for the content of the article. Any views or opinions presented in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RAGA. Any liability in respect to this communication remain with the author.

Originally published on:http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2014/11/14/strong-dollar-cheap-oil-free-market-or-manipulation

There has been much discussion about combat drones, with some calling them bad while others claim they are a force for good. In this short memo I want to give an unbiased, realistic outlook on what combat drones are, where this technology is going, and how to use them responsibly.

Unmanned combat vehicles, or drones, are an irreversible technology that will only continue to develop, becoming increasingly more sophisticated, capable, precise, and in the hands of the military – lethal. All nations that are able to build them will do so without reservation or delay, a fact that everyone must accept. The race for the most advanced drones is really just beginning, and in this age of technology they are fast becoming an essential tool for every military institution. This is neither good nor bad.

From a technological point of view it is beneficial since more advanced technology, especially in the fields of aviation, robotics, and transportation, will have many constructive uses in our society. WWII, as horrific as it was, brought about and accelerated the development of many useful technologies that we now enjoy. The use of drones by the military is no different and in the age of technology is fast becoming an essential tool for every military institution.

That said, combat drones demand a very high level of responsibility as they permit operators to perform their jobs, physically and psychologically, in a location very distant from the battlefield. This increases the likelihood of possible abuse of this technology and allows an operator to play “fast and loose” with lethal arsenal. Due to this distancing from the area of operation and without physical assessment of the aftermath, the pilots, commanders, and the highest levels of government are highly prone to using drones on more occasions than they would otherwise. This results in excessive collateral damage including civilian causalities which turns the effected population, that otherwise would not do so, against the user nation. Therefore, the implementation of drones alone over other tactics or the use of drones without an “on the ground” damage assessment may create more enemies than such weapon destroys. What are the solutions to these problems?

The chain of command, from the Commander in Chief to the pilot executing the order, must be thoroughly informed about the target, the strategy in the region, and the risks as well as the outcomes that are to be achieved. All analysis should be done for long and short term outcomes. If any of the objectives are not, or cannot be met, then the strategy must be corrected immediately. The general objective of any military should be: eliminate the enemy, prevent enemy reinforcements, and gain the support of the local non-combatants. Drones partially allow the military to do that, however for this strategy to be effective drones strikes must be:

Very precise.

Conducted with minimum civilian casualties and collateral damage.

Carried out only with absolute certainty that the target is correct, on the ground, and is worth striking.

Authorized by the appropriate legal representative.

Supervised by experts on the region of operation and on the target in question.

The above guidelines can be summarised into one sentence that must be at the core of any long-term strategy that involves the use of combat drones. “The goal of all drone strikes is the elimination of enemy combatants with absolute minimal civilian and collateral damage.”

To accomplish this, all strikes must be accompanied by highly effective on the ground humanitarian efforts such as medical support, plentiful food and water supply, infrastructure and housing development, educational programs, and all other supportive actions that are necessary to win the “hearts and minds” in the area / country of operation.

In the event of human casualties and severe collateral damage, these efforts must be doubled. All combat strikes must be followed by strong “nation building” efforts in order to show the population that they are not the target. Furthermore, because drones are predominantly used in third world countries, it is the effected population and not the local government, which in almost all cases is highly corrupt, that must receive the bulk of all humanitarian support.

Without the above mentioned assistance, which should be considered as the cost of waging drone warfare, these strikes will prove ineffective as a long-term strategy. Such attacks will create more enemies than they eliminate. Enemies that one day will start using drones themselves.

By Dmitry TamoikinCEO of Earth Sphere Development Corp.

PS: I invite everyone to have a pragmatic discussion on this subject so we can all learn from one another. You comments are more than welcomed.

Originally published in on: www.veteransnewsnow.com/2014/11/05/combat-drones

All statements in this report are an opinion of the author. Act at your own risk. Russia & America Goodwill Association (RAGA) is not responsible for the content of the article. Any views or opinions presented in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RAGA. Any liability in respect to this communication remain with the author.

Dear friends of the Russia & America Good Will Association and antiwar colleagues!

Is the mystery of the Malaysian airliner tragedy finally solved? So says the Russian engineer Ivan Andrievsky who claims he received email from an anonymous American who had access to satellite pictures showing the shooting of the plane by a Ukrainian air force jet. You may choose from two reports, it's your call:

THE elections in Ukraine on October 26, in the Donetsk and Lugansk republics on November 2 and the mid-term election in the USA on November 4 went as scheduled and ended as expected. The only unexpected thing was the voter participation: about 75% in the war-torn fledgling republics, about 5O% in the post-coup Ukraine and 36.6% in the USA. The impression is that the more US tries to export democracy to Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, and Russia, the less is left for local consumption. Even the unflappable Washington Post is exasperated at the lowest turnout since WWII

Forbes magazine reports: For the second year running, our votes went with the Russian president as the world’s most powerful person, followed by U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese leader Xi Jinping. http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinehoward/2014/11/05/putin-vs-obama-the-worlds-most-powerful-people-2014/

Don’t we need to hear what the world’s most powerful person has to say? Putin's speech at the Valdai Club - full transcript

The speech shows a great deal of exasperation with the US drive for dominance, but Putin carefully eschews any belligerence or ill will. Read Patrick Smith’s detailed analysis

Friday, Nov 7, 2014 The New York Times doesn’t want you to understand this Vladimir Putin speech. The Times botches it badlyhttp://www.salon.com/2014/11/07/the_new_york_times_doesnt_want_you_to_understand_this_vladimir_putin_speech/

Patrick L. Smith followed up on the latest events Friday, Nov 14, 2014 What really happened in Beijing: Putin, Obama, Xi — and the back story the media won’t tell you. Ukraine, Iran's nukes, the price of oil: if only the media connected the dots http://www.salon.com/2014/11/13/what_really_happened_in_beijing_putin_obama_xi_and_the_back_story_the_media_wont_tell_you/

Patrick connects the dots the Big Media does not want you to connect

<<The planet’s other major powers, for all their imperfections and, indeed, disgraces, understand that their time has come, parity between West and non-West is upon us. This is the core reality, not to be lost sight of. China’s and Russia’s domestic problems are rather like America’s; they are to be resolved by Chinese, Russians and Americans, a point we understand easily when it comes to the interference of others but not the other way around, when the question is our interference elsewhere.>>

Patrick Smith’s analysis echoes that of Seumas Milne on the other side of the Atlantichttp://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/29/counterweight-us-power-global-necessity-conflicts-spread<<A real counterweight to US power is a global necessity. Conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine will spread without effective restraint on western unilateralism…With the collapse of the Soviet Union, that restraint disappeared. It was only the failure of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – and Russia’s subsequent challenge to western expansion and intervention in Georgia, Syria and Ukraine – that provided some check to unbridled US power.>>http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/29/counterweight-us-power-global-necessity-conflicts-spread

Twenty-five years ago the Berlin Wall came tumbling down and with it - we are told - the last moments of the Cold War. Today there is talk of a new Cold War again pitting Russia against the West. One can make the argument the Cold War never ended for Washington. Watch Peter Lavelle CrossTalking with Ray McGovern, Ed Lozansky and Andranik Migranyan. http://rt.com/shows/crosstalk/204771-cold-war-berlin-wall/

RAGA’s task of providing varied, objective and dependable info about US-Russia relations became a LOT easier with the advent of Russia-Insider. Below is Ed Lozansky’s article—but please peruse through the whole site:

The West's Fatal Russia Mistakes: 1989-2014 When the Berlin wall came down the West had an historic chance to find a strong friendly ally in Russia. Western mistakes over the following years has lead to the exact opposite. The US to must reverse its policy of hegemony, and pursue multilateralism. Anything else will lead to continued conflict.

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics_ukraine_opinion/2014/11/10/10-01-25am/wests_fatal_russia_mistakes_1989-2014?page=0%2C0Lozansky blames the USA for imposing Neo-Liberal reforms on Russia: <The consequences of that tragic decision signified a catastrophe for Russia — devastating economic decline worse than in World War II; collapse of education, science, health services, of the military; two Chechen wars; thousands of Western "advisers" helping implement criminal privatization of state assets; the IMF’s crude policies…Russian oligarchs, some of them cheered by the West were grabbing not only economic and financial power, but also openly buying up politicians, wholesale and retail.>>

Lozansky does a good job of informing not only Americans, but Russians as well. About US role in Ukraine he writes (for those who read Russian):

RAGA associate Gilbert Doctorow emails:<<My trip to the States was quick and relatively painless. The main event which drew me there…was the Massachusetts Peace Action on the MIT campus. The results of that day are set out in the following:http://usforeignpolicy.blogs.lalibre.be/archive/2014/11/14/american-peace-movement-and-the-new-cold-war-1136655.html

In a challenge to the authors of the booklet Costs of a New Cold War: The US-Russia Confrontation over Ukraine published by the Center for the National Interest, I argue on the pages of RAGA that the current US hostility toward Russia is an escalation of the New Cold War that the USA has started when post-Communist Russia refused to obey under US Neo-Liberal hegemony. This New Cold War conflates the Crusade against Muslim “terrorists” with a Crusade against secular, but a re-born Christian Russia.http://www.raga.org/news/the-folly-of-the-new-cold-war-by-vladislav-krasnov

The problem the US has with Russia is NOT that it is reverting to the old Soviet ways. No, the problem is that the New Russia has been asserting itself as a new nation state which has thrown off the yoke of Communism and therefore feels stronger, prouder and more unified in body and spirit than ever under the USSR. To be sure, the New Russia has its share of the problems, those inherited from the USSR (such as the weakness of civil society, suspicion toward democratic procedures, and excessive reliance on centralization and government controls) and those which have resulted from US-sponsored neo-liberal reforms (capital flight, oligarchic monopolies, corruption, and consumerism). However, Putin's Russia has been making big strides in balancing various group interests to create a positive vector of democratic development.

Recently I was interviewed by Radio Radonezh, independent Christian network broadcasting in Russian language across the globe. We talked about my book Novaya Rossia, which is actually Russian translation of my book Russia Beyond Communism: A Chronicle of National Rebirth published in the USA in 1991. The thrust of my argument is that Russia’s national rebirth as a great civilization is inevitable. When I wrote the book, Soviet soldiers were forbidden even to wear a crucifix. Now Putin and his associates want to be seen at Russian church services. You may want to listen to this November 11, 2014 (at 22:20) interview on http://tv.radonezh.ru/www/_radio/efir/20141111%2022-00.mp3#21:18

If by its meddling in Ukraine, the US tried to divide the Russians in order to affect regime change in Russia, it failed miserably. After Crimea re-joined Russia via popular referendum, there is a remarkable patriotic upswing in all regions of Russia. There is a movement underway for consolidation of all patriotic forces, regardless of their political leanings, as long as they are ready to protect Russia’s sovereignty. For those who can read Russian, I recommend a religiously inspired http://www.pereprava.org/projects/

Thanks to those who responded to Antidote 6 RAGA Newsletter containing IAC appeal against US meddling in Ukraine. It may have been a link error in Ramsey Clark's petition to Pres. Obama. The direct link to the petition is http://www.iacenter.org/ukrainepetition/.

I'm happy to report that the Veterans for Peace (VFP), an organization which I joined in 1998, have announced that a number of prominent Americans, such as Oliver Stone, Ed Asner, Andrew Bacevich, Jackson Browne and Ralph Nader joined its International Advisory Board.

Well, if you still doubt the uniqueness of Russia’s Russian Christian civilization, William Brumfield’s photographs. William is Professor of Russian at Tulane University. From his email:

<<My current article for Russia beyond the Headlines is devoted to​ The Cathedral Square ensemble of Kargopol, one of the most beautiful of northern Russia's ancient towns http://rbth.com/travel/2014/11/07/the_shrines_of_kargopol_preserving_the_art_of_the_russian_north_41243.html​For best results with the slide show (full screen), click the 4-arrow icon at lower right of photo window.

​This is the 11​​​3th of my articles and photo essays on Russia's architectural and cultural heritage for the foreign-language service of the Russian national newspaper Rossiiskaia Gazeta. A unified link to the series can be found at: http://rbth.ru/discovering_russia ​Through this link a total of 3,​358 ​photographs from my documentary work in Russia are ​now accessible.>>

While Russia currently undergoes spiritual and religious renaissance, a miraculous recovery after 73 years of atheist Soviet suppression, this cannot be said of some Western counties, certainly, not of Italy, the well-spring of European renaissance and once the strong-hold of Catholicism http://rt.com/news/200999-italy-church-repurposed-martino/<<With the Italian economy crippled by recession, more and more churches are being deconsecrated and sold to private buyers, who repurpose these former houses of God into banks, theaters, night clubs and even car repair shops…Several thousand churches have recently found new owners, indicating the hard times experienced by the Catholic Church and Italy’s general switch towards secularity. >>

Malice to None. Good Will to All. Peace and Justice to the World.миру мир и благоволение в сердцах

From RAGA site:"We are an association of Americans who believe it is in the U.S. national interests to foster friendship with Russia on the basis of mutual Good Will and non-interference in each other's affairs. RAGA is a gathering of people who share common interests in Russia's history, culture, religion, economy, politics and the way of life. We feel that Russian people have made outstanding contributions to humankind and are capable of greater achievements. We envision Russia as a strong, independent, proud and free nation and as a partner in achieving peace in the world."

Sincerely,W George Krasnow (=Vladislav Krasnov)President, RAGA

All statements in this report are an opinion of the author. Act at your own risk. Russia & America Goodwill Association (RAGA) is not responsible for the content of the article. Any views or opinions presented in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RAGA. Any liability in respect to this communication remain with the author.

In this brief essay I present my observations as an attendee of plenary sessions and co-chair of a Workshop in the Massachusetts Peace Action at the MIT campus on Saturday, 8 November. My ‘sample of one’ method to characterize the American peace and anti-nuclear movements might be dismissed as anecdotal evidence were it not for the high visibility and high quality of the event in question.The keynote speaker for a day dedicated to the principle of ‘A Foreign Policy for All’ was the great American dissident MIT Professor of Linguistics Noam Chomsky. His well-constructed speech, delivered in a calm and reflective tone, covered the waterfront of wrongs in Americans’ conceptualization of their place in the world, beginning with ‘exceptionalism’ and extending to the bizarre notion that they own the world and any ‘loss’ of some piece of it is a direct challenge to their national security.Other featured speakers included veteran NY Times journalist and academic Stephen Kinzer, noted journalist and activist on the Israeli occupation Phyllis Bennis and Black affairs – labor activist and writer Bill Fletcher, Jr., all of whom delivered informative presentations with great passion.The national reputations of these speakers assured the event’s relative popularity. The 300-seat auditorium was filled with a cross section of ages and occupations. To be sure, gray heads predominated, veterans of the anti-Vietnam War demonstrations of the 60’s and ‘70’s, of the SANE and nuclear freeze movements of the ‘80’s. They ran the show, unlike the days of their own training in protest when youth called the shots in the post-1968 world. However, though they were observers rather than leaders, the students from the many universities of the Greater Boston area constituted close to 50% and one workshop was dedicated to recruitment of sympathizers on campus. The organizers and participants clearly shared an identity as the Progressive Left, with strong anti-corporate, anti-Washington biases. For all that it was unmistakable how very strongly their priorities have been shaped by the narrative coming from the nation’s capital and from the mass media. Put simply, this community of peaceniks is concerned about what CNN and Fox News tells it to be concerned about – whether Ebola or the ISIS threat in Syria and Iraq. In a misguided approach to risk appraisal, it allows itself to panic over Jaws while pooh-poohing the risks inherent in driving automobiles.These problems show up in the unstructured menu of Workshops which head off in all directions from Food and Foreign Policy to Drones, Space Weapons and Cyber Wars; from the Struggle Against Inequality and for Social and Economic Justice to Manufacturing Consent. They show up in the list of Priority Regional issues calling for “New approaches to China, Korea, Middle East and Persian Gulf, Israel/Palestine, Africa Cuba, Venezuela, Marshall Islands, NATO and more.” The failure to mention new approaches to Russia at the very moment when the onset of a New Cold War is recognized by all political commentators is emblematic of how the leadership of the peace movement is behind the curve, oblivious to changes in the international arena which have bypassed the favorite topics of special cause groups in which so many of the presenters are heavily invested. This obtuseness is all the more striking in the vital area of nuclear disarmament: the Workshop on this subject was dedicated wholly to issues of non-proliferation, working in line with Washington’s post-9/11 concerns about terrorists laying their hands on dirty bombs provided to them by rogue states. Armageddon from a nuclear exchange between the world’s two nuclear superpowers, a notion which spawned SANE and the other organizations represented at the MIT event decades ago and which is today back with full vigor has not yet penetrated the consciousness of the leadership.The net result of this blindness to the new realities and subservience to old concerns of injustices around the world and to a phony agenda manufactured by their opponents in Washington, like cyber warfare and Ebola threats, is that the Workshop on Eastern Europe, Ukraine & Russia with its 3 presenters attracted just 9 visitors from among the 300 plus persons in the plenary sessions. The single greatest draw was the Workshop on A Foreign Policy for All in the Middle East & North Africa: Foreign Intervention, Jihadism & Alternatives. Beheadings clearly have captured the popular imagination; the murder of the civilian population in the Donbas by heavy artillery, the threat of a hot war between NATO and Russia as their respective proxies in Ukraine suck the principals into conflict on Ukrainian territory is still off the radar screens of peaceniks. For now.Of course, there are other reasons why they are clueless that merit a word or two. First, Russia and its President Vladimir Putin are not likable after years of denigration and information warfare coming from Washington. Peace movement members are no more immune to media manipulation than the general population whatever they may think of their own perspicacity.The values-based Progressive Left easily gets taken in by propaganda about an authoritarian regime that allegedly jails dissent, about homophobia and about conservative family values of Russia’s silent majority, not to mention about greedy, raw capitalism. They ignore the obvious fact that most of the movement’s values on peace and international cooperation, justice and indeed human rights as well as most of their policy bullet points have been promoted by Putin in deed and in word, most recently in his Valdai Discussion Club speech in Sochi. They ignore the obvious fact that only one world leader, Vladimir Putin, directly challenges American global hegemony, that he does so in a principled and disciplined way. China is silent. The EU is cowed. Shame on the peaceniks for failing to get it.In keeping with the age and sentiments of the leaders of the 8 November event, the morning and afternoon plenary sessions were opened by a banjo-strumming singer-composer of protest songs in the Pete Seeger tradition who cleverly appealed to the conceit of the audience that they are subversive, subject to the watchful eye of the Feds who photograph and tape record their every move. In this spirit he warned the audience to be vigilant and to point out any of their neighbors who were not singing along. As one of only two in attendance wearing a jacket and tie, I sang lustily.

G. Doctorow is an occasional guest lecturer at St. Petersburg State University and Research Fellow of the American University in Moscow. His latest book, Stepping Out of Line: Collected (Nonconformist) Essays on Russian-American Relations, 2008-12, is available in paperback and e-book from Amazon.com and affiliated websites worldwide.

All statements in this report are an opinion of the author. Act at your own risk. Russia & America Goodwill Association (RAGA) is not responsible for the content of the article. Any views or opinions presented in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RAGA. Any liability in respect to this communication remain with the author.

MIR TV Channel, with 90 million viewers in 14 different nations across the globe, through its series “Made In USSR” tells the story of how life was in the Soviet Union. In this latest program called “Soviet Jewellery” the audience will learn about the type of jewelry people wore in USSR, the high quality, appeal and rarity of these unique items, as well as the demand for them today in the collectors world.

All statements in this report are an opinion of the author. Act at your own risk. Russia & America Goodwill Association (RAGA) is not responsible for the content of the article. Any views or opinions presented in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RAGA. Any liability in respect to this communication remain with the author.

Vote vs vote - legitimacy vs legitimacy: During the course of a week Ukraine has experienced two election cycles with very different outcomes. One appears to support war, the other peace. CrossTalking with Marcus Papadopoulos, Gilbert Doctorow and Dmitry Linnik.

All statements in this report are an opinion of the author. Act at your own risk. Russia & America Goodwill Association (RAGA) is not responsible for the content of the article. Any views or opinions presented in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RAGA. Any liability in respect to this communication remain with the author.